By Tim Allen, Managing Editor
Campaign season is the season of diagnoses.
Candidates tell us what’s wrong with Oklahoma. Schools need improvement. Healthcare costs too much. Homeowners insurance is becoming unaffordable. Taxes should be eliminated. Government spends too much. Government regulates too much. Government doesn’t do enough.
The difficult part of running for office isn’t identifying problems.
It’s prescribing solutions.
The question voters should be asking every candidate is a simple one:
How, exactly, will you fix the problem?
That’s where campaigning gives way to governing.
One theme has surfaced again and again as the statewide runoff campaigns have taken shape. Nearly every candidate does a good job diagnosing Oklahoma’s challenges. The differences emerge when they explain how they intend to address them.
Some candidates offer detailed policy proposals. Others focus more on broad goals and governing philosophy. Neither approach is inherently right or wrong.
But every campaign should be prepared to answer the same question:
How?
How will this proposal become law? How will you pay for it? Whose cooperation will you need? What powers does your office actually have?
Campaigns also rely heavily on endorsements. There’s nothing wrong with that. Endorsements can tell us something about a candidate’s supporters, political coalition or governing philosophy.
But an endorsement isn’t a governing plan.
Whether it comes from a president, a governor, a labor union or a business organization, an endorsement doesn’t explain how that candidate will use the powers of the office after taking the oath.
Government isn’t one-size-fits-all. Every office has different responsibilities—and different limits.
A governor can’t simply decree new laws into existence. An attorney general can’t rewrite statutes. An insurance commissioner can’t simply order premiums lower.
Those aren’t technicalities.
They’re the rules of the game.
Consider the perennial call to eliminate Oklahoma’s income tax. Whether that’s good policy isn’t the point. Eliminating a major source of state revenue isn’t a prescription unless candidates also explain how they’ll replace the revenue, reduce spending, phase in the change or otherwise keep the budget balanced. And if the proposal requires persuading a majority of the Legislature to agree, they should say that, too.
Governing isn’t simply announcing a goal.
It’s building the coalition necessary to achieve it.
Those aren’t “gotcha” questions.
They’re governing questions.
The same standard applies across the board.
If a candidate promises to improve education, how? If the goal is to reduce insurance costs, how? If the promise is to strengthen public safety, how? If the objective is to grow Oklahoma’s economy, what specific powers of the office will make that happen?
Campaigns naturally focus on diagnosing problems. Governing is about solving them within the limits of the office, the budget and the law.
Our system was designed that way. Governors cannot govern alone. Legislators need majorities. Attorneys general enforce laws; they don’t write them. State officials cannot simply assume powers the Constitution gives to someone else.
Candidates don’t owe voters easy answers.
They owe them honest ones.
If a proposal requires legislative approval, say so. If it depends on federal action, explain that. If it costs money, tell voters where it will come from. If achieving a goal requires difficult tradeoffs, don’t pretend otherwise.
Campaigns are built on applause lines.
Governing is built on details.
Every candidate can diagnose what’s wrong with Oklahoma.
Before you give them your vote, make sure they can also write the prescription.
That’s What the Week Revealed.
